Waaa Waaa What? How did you come to this conclusion? While sure some Karate fighters may stand more flat footed then boxers (some) the idea that nobody figured out how to move on the balls of there feet before they saw western boxing is nuts.

Shonuff-all those dirty fighting moves are effective but can't be trained live and thus truly perfected, so in a way boxing beats Karate big time. Not saying you should never practice those, I've always thought it's good to keep those tactics in mind as they can really come in handy but boxing has a major advantage being able to be trained live. Hence why I said before just because you have those options that Karate gives doesnt necessairly mean you'll be able to make them work.

About step sparring and me just not understanding it (and by step sparring I mean the standard-guy a throws lung punch, guy b reacts with like 5 moves or something at will, no more give and take then that, or jsut the same couple responses repeated a few tiems in a sequence), older, much more experienced peopel agree so the age and inexperience thing doesnt hold water, though I wont claim to be an expert on Karate, I just tell it like I see it.

Eh, I'm in over my head, lol, I'll head off to a thread more on my level now. Been a goos mental workout though.

_________________________
Member of DaJoGen MMA school under Dave Hagen and Team Chaos fight team under Denver Mangiyatan and Chris Toquero, ran out of Zanshin Martial Arts in Salem Oregon: http://www.zanshinarts.org/Home.aspx,

I'm not alone in this belief. It's fairly common. Dan Djurdjevic (who posted on this thread) sums it up nicely in one of his articles:

Quote: I believe the advent of modern non-contact sport fighting (particularly karate's "ippon shobu" contests from the late 1950s and early 60s onwards) changed the manifestation of traditional martial arts completely. This is particularly relevant if you consider that few in karate, taekwondo and Chinese quan fa (kung fu) even did free-sparring in their training prior to the 1960s.

Quote:Consider the fundamental hand positions of all Okinawan kata you see the same range (the "uchi uke" of shotokan has the same "finish" position as goju's "chudan uke", to name just one example). If you look at any footage of early karate, nothing suggests "darting in and out" of the melee; even in the basic drills (sambon kumite) participants always stay continuously "toe-to-toe". The footage below provides a good example. While the practitioners have not distanced their techniques realistically they are still in the "melee". And you will note that there is no bouncing. In fact, I can find no evidence of bouncing pre-war and immediately post-war ...

Ian Abernethy also states that modern karate training is influenced by boxing, But here is talking about the influence of boxing's teaching methodology (another, earlier point of mine):

Quote: I would class myself as a "traditional karateka," and yet as a regular part of my training I hit a punch bag, jump rope and spar using boxing gloves - as I'm sure many of those reading this article do also. The western art of boxing has had a huge influence on all the martial arts.

Also from Abernethy:

Quote:Whilst the original art of boxing was a complete system that covered all ranges, the skills of kicking, grappling and ground work are completely omitted from the arts modern offspring. And this situation is by no means unique to boxing. As examples, Judo and Aikido tend not to include the striking skills that were once a fundamental part of the art. And the vast majority of karateka no longer include the grappling and groundwork associated with the karate katas in their training (read my book, "Karate's Grappling Methods" for further details). This "specialisation" does have an upside however, as it has resulted in these specific skills being taken to extremely high levels. There can be little doubt that when it comes to punching, modern boxing is head and shoulders above all other arts.

And for the record, I'm not saying "nobody figured out how to move on the balls of there feet before they saw western boxing". I'm saying that karate DID NOT train footwork based on movement on the balls of your feet before boxing's influence.

If you don't like it, too bad. Show me reference from kata, bunkai photos (pre 1960's) or some pre 1960's film of bunkai. If you can't present contradictory evidence you're just blowing hot air.

Stormdragon: No, I don't see a boxing style lead hook in that kata.

--Chris

Edited by Ames (11/17/0804:32 PM)

_________________________
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."--Basho

Quote: I don't exactly agree with that. Much of it has to do with boxers regularly practicing against resistance, something that a fair amount of karate people don't do.

Matt,

None of the things I was thinking about are explained by boxers training with resistance. I was thinking of some of the weaving and stance and footwork tactics etc which work fine in a boxing match but are more risky (not unworkable though) when your opponent might knee you in the head.

You are right many Karateka don't train regularly with resistance. However many do. Hence training methods do not work as a means of defining any but the smallest most insular martial arts. Or IMA .

Ames

I was not ignoring you, infact I was in the middle of writing a response, but when the girlfriend calls karate nor boxing hold any defence.

Quote: Boxing has a diffirent strategy than karate. Boxing has diffirent setups/combinations than karate...shall I go on?

No it doesn't.

Quote:

Attempting to dismiss logical points by extreme relativism is flawed; in doing so, you, by extension, are dismissing your own points,

Some of them perhaps. This is why I didn't get involved in this debate earlier, the question is meaningless, un-testable and totally subjective.

That said, Karate is not limited to what you think it is. Variation in training is common enough across the world that training methods cannot be used to define Karate. Identify perhaps, but not define.

Quote:

No, Karate is not 'boxing +" anything. Karate, especially in its tradional form, is very diffirent than boxing. I find your arrogance regarding the implication that karate has everything of boxing plus (+) more, to absolutely without merit.

Hands up Karate people who have practiced, seen practiced or been exposed to boxing techniques and methods in a karate class?

This was the point I had to go...

Since you seem to want historical evidence and direct kata references I shall oblige you.

First a well documented incident was of Choki Motobu knocking out a boxer who was taking on all comers in Japan. Before dropping the man with one blow, Motobu is noted to have moved around evading and dodging the blows. Karate: My art by Choki Motobu.

Direct evidence of "boxing footwork" or "bobbing and weaving" that pre-dates Karate's exposure to the west? Maybe maybe not, but it's an unreasonable and irrelevant request. I'll explain why in a moment.

Gichin Funakoshi, after the war was accosted by a man who wished to rob him. He describes ducking under the man's punch and hitting him in the groin with his umbrella. He then felt very guilty for using karate when he could have just given the man what he asked for.

Shoshin Nagamine, (med correct me if I'm wrong here) noted in his book on Karate, that the only difference between boxing and karate was of karates use of kicks? (need to check this one).

Shotokan Kata Bassai Dai makes use of a weave and corkscrew punch into an uppercut and throw combination: application of the yama-zuki sequence.This kata also demonstrates a jab while advancing with a lead leg step (a la boxing).

Goju-ryu makes regular use of dropping from a high stance into a low shiko-dachi, often interpreted as a duck/weave (Goju folk correct me if I'm wrong).

A number of gedan barrai movements across various shotokan kata are interpreted as slips which in application are further fascilitated by slight weaving movements.

One Shotokan variant of Hiean Nidan has a weave encorporated from manji uke to gyaku ude uke. This is most likely a modern addition, possibly taken from boxing influence, but it really doesn't matter because as Funakoshi said, Karate like anything must grow and change or die.

The thing is Ames, you misunderstand the role of Kata. The term catalogue of techniques is misleading. Nothing in the history, literature or culture of karate has ever limited the content of an style to the techniques of the kata (hence round house kick).

The word kata, means example. The bunkai is an analysis, a literal look at what each kata movement is for, but looking behind that, we see what is implied by the movements. The implication is the fighting art. I can see exactly where your image of karate has originated from, I understand why you hold the views you do, but Karate is not limited to what you think it is.

If you take someone trained as I have been in Karate and tell them they are going to fight under boxing rules then leave them a month to train for the fight, you will find that striking wise they fight the same. Movement will be slightly different, defence will be slightly different. The strikes will be the same.

Quote: If your line of reasoning was correct, then taken to its full extension, many styles of Kung fu have 'better strikes' than karate, simply because many styles of kung fu have more strikes in their system.

Yup, so long as it can be shown that those strikes fill a whole or are better than the tools already employed.

Quote: I suggest you try this with a BJJer of moderate ablility.

Why do you assume I haven't? Because I'm a karateka and so don't train in resistive combat?

Quote: How precisely does Karate "do more" with it's attacks and defences than boxing "ever could".

Well by grabbing for one thing. Kinda hard to do that in boxing gloves. Also by trapping and applying joint locks and other grappling methods. Yes there are grappling methods in Karate.

Quote: Which is it? What are you trying to say. You are not really presenting a focused argument.

I am if you read it in context. I was saying to Stormdragon that you cannot compare only punching and call it fair because karate is more than punching. Striking does not only mean punching as far as I am aware.

Quote: Yes, I think we have established that is not only the hard training indivdual, the technique's , but also " the methods" that create a good fighter. How does this make a case for Karate 'methods' (training methodology) being better?

It doesn't. We are not discussing training methods. However if we were, I would state again that Karate is not limited to what you think it is. What you identify as Karate methods is not nor ever was the entirety of karate training.

Why not set up another discussion on who has the best training methods.

Quote: No, it isn't flawed at all. Boxing has the same general training methods, with small differences, from place to place. There are enough simularities, however, that one would know that they are 'training boxing' or 'training karate'.

Just because there is variation, does not mean that general statments can't be made. If what you are saying is true, it would be impossible for Sceintific diciplines, like biology or geology for example, to exist.

I never said arts could not be classified, I said training methods were not a viable way classifying them because of the amount of variation.

Incidentally, Stormdragon:

Quote: You're right I havent seen your Karate, I'm going by the Karate I have seen and experienced which happens to be a big portion of the Karate found in America, and even the world.

Dude, get over yourself. You've seen next to nothing, certainly nothing that matters.

One thing that comes across in your posts is that oh so western trait, I can't do it after 5 minutes it must be crap. There is more to MA than what you've seen and what you can do.

Back to you Ames,

Quote: Again, as I stated in MY post (which you have choses to ignore) your scenerio is hypotheical. I supplied another where the boxer can indeed counter this. One way that boxing trains how to counter this is through heavy reliance on evasive footwork.

I'd like to see someone sidestep while in mid forward step and jab, but that's besides the point. Your hypothetical relies on the boxer previously having trained against things that as a boxer he has no experience of and uses tactics and tools that a karateka will be familiar with. Yes it could happen and he could win, but who has better strikes? The one who covers more options IMO.

Quote: Although you didn't say that, you did imply that karate was better because it contains more techniques.

I implied nothing. I stated directly that Karate's striking , i.e. the techniques at the disposal of the karateka, was better for specific reasons. You and Stormy are reading more into my words than is present. This is evident by the fact that between you we have talked about MMA, Muay thai, training methods and Karate history, yet neither of you have mentioned anything about the strikes of boxing that make them inherantly superior to those of Karate.

Quote: . You appear to be operating on the assumption that boxing cannot standalone against another striking art. Again, this seems to be due to your preoccupation with techniques (more techniques > better art).

Here is an example of boxer using boxing against a well trained Muay Thai fighter:

Just because a boxer is put under a diffirent (striking) rule set, doesn't mean he can't still box. If anything, the fact that boxing does work in these setting shows that the seemingly limited techniques are extremely adaptable (thus making them not so limited).

Yeah that flying push kick at 8.51 was pure boxing at its best.

I never said a boxer would not still be able to box. What you deftly manage to avoid understanding was that in an environment where other techniques were available and were a viable and imminent threat, the shape of the unfamiliar fighters art will change to accomodate this new information and techniques. The video you put up was evidence of that (see the afore mentioned kick). Just as boxers in MMA now grapple and are wary of takedowns, so Karateka in boxing rules will eventually devolve into boxers.

Incidentally that video shows only that one muay thai fighter is really not very good at dealing with being rushed. Nothing else.

Apologies all for the long post. I wouldn't want to be accused of wilfully ignoring anything.

But I'm wondering if we are talking about the same thing here. Maybe I haven't been clear enough. I understand that karate can be light on its feet, but I wonder if you do things like raise up on the ball of the foot while in stance? What I mean is, that aside from the sliding step seen in much JMA (because of armour), I know that the kata does feature movements where one steps off the ball of the foot, but I'm wondering if the weight is the way these two do:

Quote:And for the record, I'm not saying "nobody figured out how to move on the balls of there feet before they saw western boxing". I'm saying that karate DID NOT train footwork based on movement on the balls of your feet before boxing's influence.

Well that kinda is what you said, but if that is not what you meant to say fair enough.

Also, they may not have sparred but they sure as **** fought and while they probably didn't use boxing footwork, you caan be assured (based on the techniques themselves) they worked from the balls of their feet, at least some of the time.

I won't deny boxing had an effect on Karate, of course it did and still does. If an art is remain viable, it must evolve. Personally I don't care where I get it from, if something will make me a better fighter, sure I'll adapt into my aresonal.

But back on point, I think, today especially with the boxing skills be taught in Karate, Karate has the advantage in terms of striking. There is more available options and it's takes advantage of more time and opportunities the Boxing does.

Is it harder to learn and slower, sure but then whats the rush? Take the time learn more, that way when you have to fight a boxer, you have more to throw at him then maybe he is used to seeing.

Quote: Boxing has a diffirent strategy than karate. Boxing has diffirent setups/combinations than karate...shall I go on?

Quote:No it doesn't.

Yes, it absolutely does. You, yourself say that karate has:

Quote: grabbing for one thing. Kinda hard to do that in boxing gloves. Also by trapping and applying joint locks and other grappling methods.

Which is precisely why a diffirent strategy would be needed. Is that not clear? The very fact that a karateka will hold and punch will mean that they have a difffirent strategy than a boxer.

Quote: Hands up Karate people who have practiced, seen practiced or been exposed to boxing techniques and methods in a karate class?

Yep, that's one of my points. Boxing methods are taught in karate, but they came from boxing. Why? Again, I'll quote Abernethy:

Quote: This "specialisation" does have an upside however, as it has resulted in these specific skills being taken to extremely high levels. There can be little doubt that when it comes to punching, modern boxing is head and shoulders above all other arts.

Further, by what you suggest, the karate you practice owes a debt to boxing. Again, as that other Abernethy quote states:

Quote: would class myself as a "traditional karateka," and yet as a regular part of my training I hit a punch bag, jump rope and spar using boxing gloves - as I'm sure many of those reading this article do also. The western art of boxing has had a huge influence on all the martial arts.

My point is, that if your karate does indeed use some boxing skill sets and training methods, it is because they were adopted from boxing. Again, the influence should be acknowledged here. Shotokan, in particular, adopted a lot of boxing tactics. I don't think many boxers train karate for better hands.

No, it isn't irrelevant at all. You have stated that karate has everything that boxing has 'plus' ("Karate is boxing + xy and z."). Boxing, when you come down to it, is more about footwork than punches. So, if karate doesn't have boxing footwork, then your statement is incorrect. Just because you call it "irrelevent" does not make it so. Footwork is an intrinsic part of boxing and, in my experiance at least, is trained and isolated equal to the hands.

I'm going to turn the tables on you for a moment and say that I think you misunderstand boxing.

Quote: Shotokan Kata Bassai Dai makes use of a weave and corkscrew punch into an uppercut and throw combination: application of the yama-zuki sequence.This kata also demonstrates a jab while advancing with a lead leg step (a la boxing).

I'm sorry, but no. This footwork is just not the same. You'll have to point out to me where you see a bob and weave there, because I didn't see anything like one.

Now before you state that I'm not seeing the kata right, please remember my statement regarding boxing's influence on modern karate. There is nothing in that kata that even approximates a boxers bob/weave. Maybe there is a 'karate version' or something, but if your bob/weave looks like a boxers and you're telling me it comes from there...I'd say you are doing two arts: karate for the kata, and boxing for the sparring.

The fact is, that none of those kata's have footwork which looks anything like boxings. Now, I'm not saying that that is good or bad. I'm asking you to give boxing its due.

Quote: but looking behind that, we see what is implied by the movements. The implication is the fighting art.

By your definition you could say that kali stick fighting is found in the kata...as long as the interpretor understands that implication. Sorry, I don't buy it. Yes, bobbing and weaving might be in the karate you are taught, but it is imported from boxing.

I'll remind you that this is a discussion on boxing and karate, and you'll need to show that the technique is from karate and not boxing. So far from the evidence, it looks like your calling boxing techniques 'karate'.

Quote:Movement will be slightly different, defence will be slightly different. The strikes will be the same.

I don't understand this. If the movement is diffirent, then the strikes will be diffirent.

Quote: Why do you assume I haven't? Because I'm a karateka and so don't train in resistive combat?

I don't know where I ever said that. But tell me, have you, or have you not, tried this strategy against a BJJ practioner?

Quote:We are not discussing training methods.

Maybe you're not, but myself and others certainly are. The training methods are not only integral to boxing: they ARE boxing. I'm not going to go over why again. I've done that. But, in a disscussion such as this, the training methods are a very important part of the discussion. The training methods are what make boxing what it is, not the specific form of the punches.

Quote: However if we were, I would state again that Karate is not limited to what you think it is.

What training methods am I leaving out per chance? Do you use a heavy bag, gloves, skipping rope: that proves a boxing influence.

Quote:Well by grabbing for one thing. Kinda hard to do that in boxing gloves. Also by trapping and applying joint locks and other grappling methods. Yes there are grappling methods in Karate.

And you apply these techniques in sparring then? Tell me, do you spar bareknuckle?

Also, please go try to trap or apply a standing joint lock to a decently trained boxer. I've taken aikido, aikijujutsu, chin na for 15 years and never been able to, nor seen anyone else who could.

As a matter of fact, I've yet to see either of these done during full on kumite between two karateka!

Quote:Your hypothetical relies on the boxer previously having trained against things that as a boxer he has no experience of and uses tactics and tools that a karateka will be familiar with.

No, it doesn't. Do you honestly beleive that a boxer needs to train karate in order to beat a karateka! I'm not going to argue with you over how subjective and flawed this point, as well as your idealised, fantasical illustration of a karateka vs. a boxer. Sorry, it means nothing.

Also, be aware that I meant my hypothitical to be just that: hypothetical, in order to show you how flawed yours was.

Further, I can turn this logic back on you and say that if your karateka defeats the boxer it is only because his training has become saturated by boxing training methodology (heavy bag, pads, rope etc) and techniques.

Quote:yet neither of you have mentioned anything about the strikes of boxing that make them inherantly superior to those of Karate.

I think you should read my posts again. Again, you are setting up a false polemic between 'striking' and 'training methods'. What makes a boxers striking superior are the training methods that allow him/her to use them in short amount of time with a high degree of success.

Quote:Yeah that flying push kick at 8.51 was pure boxing at its best.

One technique out of 9 minutes! The fact that that was a champion boxer and that everything else he did was pure boxing means means nothing, huh? That fight was dominated by boxing strikes and footwork--the kick really had no effect on the outcome whatsoever...the guy was already done.

Quote: What you deftly manage to avoid understanding was that in an environment where other techniques were available and were a viable and imminent threat, the shape of the unfamiliar fighters art will change to accomodate this new information and techniques. The video you put up was evidence of that (see the afore mentioned kick).

Again, that kick was for show. Anyone watching the video can see that. It didn't change the outcome, the MT guy was already done.

Also, you never stated anything like that in your past posts. I really don't disagree with the fact that "the shape of the unfamiliar fighters art will change to accomodate this new information and techniques". See my earlier post on a boxer being able to pull off eyegouges, and other 'deadly' techniques should he need to. I'm in agreement with you on this.

Quote:Just as boxers in MMA now grapple and are wary of takedowns, so Karateka in boxing rules will eventually devolve into boxers.

I don't really see your point with 'karateka will devolve to boxers in a boxing ring? What are you getting at here? That boxing is the best art for throwing punches and therefore any art placed under a 'punch only' rule set will have to immitate it? I agree. So?

Quote:Incidentally that video shows only that one muay thai fighter is really not very good at dealing with being rushed. Nothing else

Yes, it is only one fight. But it goes towards my point that a boxer does not need to kick in order to best a kicker. That one kick (which did nothing) aside, that match was won by boxing techniques. This goes towards my larger point that it is not the number of weapons in your toolbox, but how well you use the few you have.

I am well aware, that had it been two diffirent fighter, the outcome could have been diffirent.

_________________________
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."--Basho

Shonuff-How many gyms have you traiend at which gives you credibility to say what boxing is and how it relates to Karate in a technical sense? Do you somehow have an equal amount of training in both boxing and Karate? If you dont then you have no palce to talk either. And I've seen next to nothing? A few years of daily training and tons of videos, both isntructional and otherwise, books, and so on is next to nothing? Really? Where does a person get to the point where they can start talking with credibility, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years? Who're you to say for sure and to be considered mroe credible than anyone else (maybe more than me but what about Ames or Jkogas?Oh right they don't know enough about Karate, kidn of like how you don't know enough about boxing I bet. And it doesnt matter about doign it in "5 minutes or it's worthless". Why would you practice in a way that takes logner to get roughly the same results? That makes NO sense.

_________________________
Member of DaJoGen MMA school under Dave Hagen and Team Chaos fight team under Denver Mangiyatan and Chris Toquero, ran out of Zanshin Martial Arts in Salem Oregon: http://www.zanshinarts.org/Home.aspx,